NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday ruled against an effort by the U.S. Federal Reserve to block disclosure of companies that participated in and securities covered by a series of emergency funding programs as the global credit crisis began to intensify.

In a 47-page opinion, Chief District Judge Loretta Preska of the federal court in Manhattan said the central bank failed to show that disclosure would cause borrowers in the Federal Reserve System to suffer "imminent competitive harm," by stigmatizing them for using Fed lending programs

The Clearing House submits this declaration because the Court's Order threatens to impair the ability of our members to access emergency funds through the New York Fed's Discount Window without suffering the severe competitive harm that public disclosure of their identity will cause.

Our members have accessed the New York Fed's Discount Window with the understanding that the Fed will not publicly disclose information about their borrowing, especially their identity. Industry experience, including very recent and searing experience, has shown that negative rumors about a bank's financial condition - even completely unfounded rumors - have caused competitive harm, including bank runs and failures.

While they do have a little bit of a point in what they are saying, I don't think it's enough to block the people (who's money they are actually handing out, contrary to what Patters thinks) from knowing what's up. Good ruling, now lets open them books!

While they do have a little bit of a point in what they are saying, I don't think it's enough to block the people (who's money they are actually handing out, contrary to what Patters thinks) from knowing what's up. Good ruling, now lets open them books!

Click to expand...

these guys talk about competition and yet they are all in on this clearinghouse ... do they really want us to believe they are in competition with each other?

This is convenient. Blame the unstoppable collapse of the global economy on a court's ruling in Manhattan.

The reality? A systemic collapse is coming, with or without the vindictiveness of banks forced to show their books.

....

Energy IS the economy. Period.

Click to expand...

This isn't a thread pointing blame.

It's a big story to the secrecy that is known as the fed ... that's all.
The accompanying story of support in Congress for an overhaul of the fed is news to follow. A system of banks that profits off paper transactions. That aides s government in spending money they don't have and/or have yet to receive in taxes.

The door cracking on the secrecy is part of the yet revealed story of our paper money system being scrapped ... much more to follow. Barney Frank is supposedly on board with an overhaul - we'll see soon. That we've had this unconstitutional system for years is amazing.

It is not unconstitutional...it was created to directly administer their powers over commerce and money as allowed in Article 1, Section 8. Congress delegated the power, they in turn are using their power over the Fed to get them to do what they are supposed to do in the founding law in the first place:http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/files/105/FRA-LH-PL63-43.pdf

While they do have a little bit of a point in what they are saying, I don't think it's enough to block the people (who's money they are actually handing out, contrary to what Patters thinks) from knowing what's up. Good ruling, now lets open them books!

Click to expand...

RW....do you actually think that young lady you have attached to all your posts is nice looking? Yuk!! She aint all that...or even some of that. Let's see some nice looking women for once!

RW....do you actually think that young lady you have attached to all your posts is nice looking? Yuk!! She aint all that...or even some of that. Let's see some nice looking women for once!

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think she's nice looking. I think she's sultry, and a certifiable zoccola of the highest grade. Everytime I see her, she makes me wish I were a 5 year old boy, in a UN controlled education system, if you know what I mean.

It is not unconstitutional...it was created to directly administer their powers over commerce and money as allowed in Article 1, Section 8. Congress delegated the power, they in turn are using their power over the Fed to get them to do what they are supposed to do in the founding law in the first place:http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/files/105/FRA-LH-PL63-43.pdf

Click to expand...

The Constituion viewed money as gold and silver - not paper. The Fed is all about paper transactions and transactions where there is no physical money to back anything up. The Coinage Act of 1792 was the implementation of Article 1, section 8. Only Congress can Constitutionally coin money and the Fed isn't Congress.

The Fed is not Federal and they do not have the reserves at all to back up the system ... they do not have gold and silver backing up the supply. They were given the authority by Congress to print paper money and as our problems have recently shown - to create electronic money that does not really exist ... it's a house of cards and unconstitutional.

I would also like to add to this thread that Congress shirked their responibilities when they created the Fed. We have run ever increasing deficits as time has gone on as the Fed creates electronic money.

Now - we are led to believe that a Congress that does not want to control money as they were supposed to do according to our Constitution is now going to run healthcare.

They can't or won't control money but they can and will control our healthcare ... nice.

So ... we're always printing money and it flows out of the country. If it ever came back in droves inflation would be similar to that experienced in Germany years ago. Is Congress going to print more money to effectively manage the healthcare system - you bet they will and Obama knows it. We cannot implement any program that relies on the printing of money without reserves (electronic money).

The Constituion viewed money as gold and silver - not paper. The Fed is all about paper transactions and transactions where there is no physical money to back anything up. The Coinage Act of 1792 was the implementation of Article 1, section 8. Only Congress can Constitutionally coin money and the Fed isn't Congress.

The Fed is not Federal and they do not have the reserves at all to back up the system ... they do not have gold and silver backing up the supply. They were given the authority by Congress to print paper money and as our problems have recently shown - to create electronic money that does not really exist ... it's a house of cards and unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

The coinage act was one implementation of the Article 1, Section 8. The Federal Reserve Act was another implementation of Article.

The coinage act was one implementation of the Article 1, Section 8. The Federal Reserve Act was another implementation of Article.

Click to expand...

an "Article" is not a Constitutional Amendment - do you always feel the need to get the last word? The Fed is not Constituional - they exist and nobody is going to do anything about it - maybe - we'll see.

Okay ... I give up - you can now have the last word about the Unconstitutional Fed.

an "Article" is not a Constitutional Amendment - do you always feel the need to get the last word?

Click to expand...

Do you even know what the hell you are talking about here? I was talking about an Article of the US Constitution, you know part of the original 1787 Constitution not one of the 27 additions that do not change the Article in any form that diminishes the part of the Article that deals with the powers to create the federal corporation

The Fed is not Constituional - they exist and nobody is going to do anything about it - maybe - we'll see.

Click to expand...

It's unconstitutional because you say it is...while at any point in the last 95 years since the enacting of the Federal Reserve Act the US Supreme Court could have shot down the right for it to exist as unconstitutional

Never mind that...you say it is unconstitutional therefor it must be

Okay ... I give up - you can now have the last word about the Unconstitutional Fed.

The doctrine of nondelegation is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a structural separation of powers. It is usually applied in questions of constitutionally improper delegations of legislative powers to executive branch officials, but may be more broadly applied to questions of improper delegations of legislative powers to judicial officials, improper delegations of judicial powers to legislative or executive officials, improper delegations of executive powers to legislative or judicial officials, improper delegations of legislative or judicial powers to clerical subordinates within their branches, or improper delegations of legislative, judicial, or executive powers to private parties, or improper delegations of private powers to public officials. Although it is usually constitutional for executive officials to delegate executive powers to executive branch subordinates, there can also be improper delegations of powers within an executive branch.

The standard practice for violating the nondelegation doctrine is to proclaim, disingenuously, that no power has been delegated, and the administrative agency is only "advising" the court, who has the final decision. But then the court merely rubberstamps the agency finding or actions, without adequate review, "deferring" to its judgment. This ruse has the effect, in practice, of delegating both lawmaking and judicial power to the agency, contrary to U.S. and state constitutions. This is the way income taxes are assessed and collected. Officials maintain language that is formally constitutional, but defeat the constitution in practice (or "as applied" to use the term of art).

But the chief victim is accountability in government. Originally designed to be the most accountable branch of government, Congress has grown increasingly irresponsible.

The fundamental link between voter and lawmaker has been obliterated by unelected regulators hiding behind bad laws.

A handful of broadly written laws has spawned an alphabet soup of government agencies and an overwhelming regulatory burden that undermine the very idea of representative government.

Several bills now before Congress seek to rein in unaccountable regulatory agencies. Unfortunately, these reforms aim only to improve regulations by imposing additional procedural requirements on the agencies. In effect, they seek to regulate the regulators.

Instead, Congress should act to restore accountability in government by requiring itself to comply with Article I. The Congressional Responsibility Act would subject all regulation to Congressional approval. Under the bill, a regulation can be approved in one of two ways: (1) through an expedited process designed to limit debate and amendment and allow for a quick vote on uncontroversial regulations; (2) through the regular legislative process, whenever a majority of members agree to waive the expedited method. Regulations would only take effect if approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. There would be no need to impose additional procedural requirements on agencies. The bill would not be retroactive.

Sounds radical? This is an ideologically neutral and nonpartisan reform. Concerns about legislative delegation have been voiced by people as politically diverse as Judge Robert Bork and Nadine Strossen, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union.

If we are to restore constitutional government, Congress must first recover its legitimate powers and rein in the regulatory agencies of the executive branch. After all, rebuilding a limited federal government, whose elected representatives are accountable for the laws they pass, is the first step toward restoring the faith of the American people in their leaders and returning to the republic envisioned by our Founders.